Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-36-WHA [WO]
03-29-2016
TIMOTHY LEE ROBINSON, #286 013, Plaintiff, v. JEFFERSON DUNN, COM., et al., Defendants.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Timothy Robinson is listed as the plaintiff in this civil action. However, Robinson did not file the $350 filing fee and $50 administrative fee necessary when a plaintiff is not proceeding in forma pauperis, nor did he submit an original affidavit in support of a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis accompanied by the required documentation from the inmate account clerk. Consequently, the court did not have the information necessary to determine whether Robinson should be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis and, therefore, entered an order on January 15, 2016, requiring him to provide the court with this information by January 29, 2016. Doc. No. 3. The court specifically cautioned Robinson that failure to comply with the January 15 order would result in a Recommendation that this case be dismissed. Id.
Robinson has filed nothing in response to the January 15, 2016, order. The court, therefore, concludes that this case is due to be dismissed. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (As a general rule, where a litigant has been forewarned, dismissal for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion.); see also Tanner v. Neal, 232 Fed. App'x 924 (11th Cir. 2007) (affirming sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of inmate's § 1983 action for failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with court's prior order directing amendment and warning of consequences for failure to comply).
Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge this case be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to file the requisite fees or provide the court with financial information in compliance with the order of this court.
The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to file the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and to serve a copy on Plaintiff. Plaintiff may file any objections to this Recommendation on or before April 12, 2016. Any objections filed must specifically identify the factual findings and legal conclusions in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court.
Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the Magistrate Judge's report shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of factual findings and legal issues covered in the report and shall "waive the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions" except upon grounds of plain error if necessary in the interests of justice. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Resolution Trust Co. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989).
DONE, this the 29th day of March, 2016.
/s/ Susan Russ Walker
Susan Russ Walker
Chief United States Magistrate Judge